Democrats: patronize, socialize agriculture

The agriculture news service DTN has been running profiles of the last three standing major candidates for president--Senators John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. None speaks in depth, knowledgeably or specifically when talking about ag issues. Sen. McCain at least stresses cutting subsidies and supporting free enterprise in agriculture.

For the Democrats, its a bidding war, to see how many farm state votes they can buy with taxpayer's money. To hear Barack or Hillary talk about, you'd swear all farmers were down to their last dollar, hopeless and begging. They love ethanol and its plethora of federal subsidies, citing the old bromide about lessening U.S. dependence on foreign oil with domestically, agriculturally produced fuel. They ignore the fact that it takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than it returns in fuel. They ignore the heavy federal subsidies--the only thing that makes the ethanol industry economically viable.

They ignore the record commodity prices that have made many farmers extremely prosperous on their own. They reiterate the old cliches about big corporations ripping off the family farms. They talk bravely about returning federal subsidies to family farmers.

They are also talking out of both sides of their mouths about foreign trade. On agriculture, that we have to send every ounce of feed overseas that we can grow. Yet they blast NAFTA and the other trade agreements that make that possible. You can't have it both ways--foreign trade is a two-way street, and you either support it or you don't. It's like being a little bit pregnant--either you are or you aren't. There's no "little bit."

Like all presidenttial campaigns, agriculture gets the short shrift until somebody's elected, and then we're stuck with the consequences. About the only conclusions you can draw from the campaigns are philosophical: is the candidate a free enterpriser, or a big government man? Do you pay farmers to keep them quiet and buy their votes, or do you allow them to compete, based on the quality of their product and service, just like the rest of business? Do you choke them with federal regulations, or let the markeplace tell them what's acceptable and not acceptable?

It's somebody's living, and their ability to earn it, that we're talking about. It's vitally important, even if its hard to tell from the lack of emphasis and media coverage agriculture gets in campaign season.